ORDER K.M. Agarwal, J. 1. Petitioner by Shri L. S. Baghel, Advocate. 2. On being questioned, how the Union of India has been shown as Respondent No. 1 in this petition, the learned counsel fairly conceded that no relief has been claimed against it and accordingly wanted to delete the name of Respondent No. 1 from the array of Respondents. Accordingly, we direct that the name of Respondent No. 1 be deleted from the array of respondents during the course of the day. Later on :- 3. After deleting the name of the respondent No. 1, Union of India, in pursuance of the order earlier made today, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer for taking up the case for Admission. Prayer allowed and arguments heard on Admission. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who claims to be an Advocate of this Court, has made a prayer for directing the respondents to prepare the roster of this High Court on 20th of each month and for a period of one month. A further direction is sought for quashing the orders dated 24-6-1992 (Annexures P.11, P.12 and P. 13), fixing the places of sittings of Brother Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. to the main seat at Jabalpur from Gwalior Bench, of Brother R. D. Shukla, J. from Jabalpur to Indore Bench and of Brother S. K. Chawla, J. from Jabalpur to Gwalior Bench issued by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on clause 1 of Chapter VII of the High Court Rules and Orders, submitted that roster is required to be prepared on the 20th of each month according to this rule, which is being not followed by the respondents. It was further argued that having once nominated the places of sitting of the aforesaid Judges of this Court, the Chief Justice had lost his powers in making changes in places of sitting of the said Judges. 6. We find no substance in any of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Taking up the last point first, we are of the view that the question of sitting of Judges to the Benches of the same High Court has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the Chief Justice concerned. 6. We find no substance in any of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Taking up the last point first, we are of the view that the question of sitting of Judges to the Benches of the same High Court has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the Chief Justice concerned. No Hard and fast rule can be laid down though the discretion has to be exercised in the interest of administrative exigencies only. It has not been shown in the present petition that the change in the places of sittings of the aforesaid learned Judges of this Court was not made by the Chief Justice in administrative exigencies. It is also to be seen that none of the aforesaid Judges has come before this Court against the impugned orders issued by the Chief Justice regarding them. It means that the aforesaid Judges are not aggrieved by the impugned orders in relation to them as they do not feel them to be not in the interest of administrative exigencies. We may further point out that by two orders dated 18-11-1968 made by the President of India and published as per Notification dated 28-11-1968, while establishing permanent Benches of this Court at Gwalior and Indore, the President was pleased to "direct that such Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh being not less than........(2 in number for Gwalior Bench and 4 in number for Indore Bench) as the Chief Justice may from time to time nominate, shall sit" at Gwalior or at Indore in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the revenue districts of Gwalior and Indore as mentioned in the said orders. Accordingly, we are of the view that the power to nominate any Judge for any of the Benches of this Court vests with the Chief Justice which can be exercised at any time or from time to time by him. Accordingly, we are of the view that the power to nominate any Judge for any of the Benches of this Court vests with the Chief Justice which can be exercised at any time or from time to time by him. It cannot be said that such power once exercised by the Chief Justice cannot be re-exercised by the Chief Justice in regard to any particular Judge in line with the principle underlying section- 14(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which says that where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after commencement of this Act, any power is conferred, then unless a different intention appears, that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion arises. It is also pertinent to note that in Abdul Taiyab v. Union of India, 1976 MPLJ 767 = AIR 1977 MP 116 , while considering the proviso inserted in the aforesaid orders of the President in the light of the argument that under the Presidential Notification, the Chief Justice having once exercised powers under the proviso, the powers under the proviso were exhausted and the Chief Justice had no authority to issue subsequent orders as were impugned in that case, it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that it cannot be said that the power conferred on the Chief Justice by the proviso to the Presidential Orders could be exercised only once and not from time to time and that it was exhausted when it was exercised for the first time. Accordingly, we find support from this decision of the Full Bench of this Court in our conclusion that the Chief Justice has the power to nominate Judges of the Benches from time to time and that power is not exhausted after having been once exercised by the Chief Justice. 7. Now coming to the next question about preparation of roster, it may be mentioned that Article 225 of the Constitution of India makes a provision for jurisdiction of the existing High Courts in following words : - "225. 7. Now coming to the next question about preparation of roster, it may be mentioned that Article 225 of the Constitution of India makes a provision for jurisdiction of the existing High Courts in following words : - "225. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the Court, including any power to make rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution." This Article specifically provides that the respective powers of the Judges of a High Court in regard to the regulation of sittings of the Court and of the members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. The position prior to the commencement of the Constitution was that Section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935, preserved the powers of the Judges of the High Court and the power to make rules and regulate sittings of the Court under Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915. Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915, provided as follows : - "108(1). Each High Court may, by its own rules, provide as it thinks fit for the exercise, by one or more Judges, or by Division Courts constituted by two or more Judges, of the High Court, of the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court. (2). The Chief Justice of each High Court shall determine what Judge in each case is to sit alone, and what Judges of the Court, whether with or without the Chief Justice, are to constitute the several Division Courts." 8. As each High Court has a number of Judges, it is not practicable that all the Judges should hear every case that comes before the Court. So the Letters Patent of the different High Courts provide that any function which is directed to be performed by the High Court of. As each High Court has a number of Judges, it is not practicable that all the Judges should hear every case that comes before the Court. So the Letters Patent of the different High Courts provide that any function which is directed to be performed by the High Court of. Judicature in exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction may be performed by any Judge or any Division Court thereof appointed or constituted for such purpose in pursuance of Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915. That power is still alive under Article 225 of the Constitution and the High Courts still enjoy the powers of making rules as enjoined under Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915. Under clause 27 of the Letters Patent of this Court, empowering the Court from time to time to make rules and orders for regulating the practice of the Court, the High Court Rules and Orders were framed. Clause 1 of Chapter VII of the High Court Rules and Orders makes a provision for sitting of Judges and for preparation of roster in following words : - "1. The Judges shall sit singly or in Benches of two or more Judges and dispose of Civil or Criminal work in accordance with a roster approved by the Chief Justice. The roster shall be prepared by the Additional Registrar in accordance with instructions given by the Chief Justice, and shall be submitted to the Chief Justice on the 20th of each month. On approval a copy of the roster shall be supplied to all Judges and to the Bar Association" 9. A careful reading of the provisions made in clause 1 of Chapter VII of the High Court Rules and Orders would show that the Chief Justice is not bound to instruct for preparation of roster for each month. It only enjoins upon the Addl. Registrar to prepare roster in accordance with the instructions given by the Chief Justice and to obtain his approval on the 20th of. each month. This does not mean that under instructions from the Chief Justice, the Addl. Registrar cannot prepare roster for any period of less than a month or that no approval can be obtained any day before or after 20th of each month. each month. This does not mean that under instructions from the Chief Justice, the Addl. Registrar cannot prepare roster for any period of less than a month or that no approval can be obtained any day before or after 20th of each month. The power of the Chief Justice to arrange for the sittings of the Court is unfettered and as held in Puran Chand v. Abdullah, AIR 1938 Allahabad 606, it is not permissible for any Bench of the High Court to give any directions to the Chief Justice in that regard. If it is for the Chief Justice to arrange for the sittings of the Court for any period or duration of time, it rests with him to direct preparation of rosters accordingly by the Additional Registrar. In other words, it is only the Chief Justice who has the right to decide which Judge is to sit alone and what cases such Judge should decide and further it is for him alone to determine what Judges shall constitute Division Benches and what work the Benches shall do. In this fashion, if it is for the Chief Justice to allot work to the Judges, it is for him to instruct preparation of roster accordingly irrespective of the period for which it is directed to be prepared. This power cannot be fettered by any order of the Court. We also find nothing in the existing rules, which may be interpreted to mean curtailment of the power of Chief Justice in the matter of preparation of roster. 10. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except in exceptional circumstances, any change in the current roster cannot be made. What are the exceptional circumstances, could not be demonstrated except saying that absence or inability of a Judge to hear a particular case would mean the exceptional circumstances. It was not disputed that there may be other exceptional circumstances for making a change in the current roster. In the light of this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to how the petitioner felt that there were no exceptional circumstances for changing the current roster as alleged in the petition. It was not disputed that there may be other exceptional circumstances for making a change in the current roster. In the light of this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to how the petitioner felt that there were no exceptional circumstances for changing the current roster as alleged in the petition. The Rules do not provide even for making changes in the current roster under exceptional circumstances and, therefore, on being asked how Chief Justice could make a change in the current roster if that power is not inferred in him, the learned counsel was unable to give any satisfactory reply. Even this argument led us to infer unfettered powers with the Chief Justice in the matter of making roster for any period and/or making changes in the current roster. 11. For. the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, it is hereby summarily dismissed.